The "Wealthy Vote" Pre-1952

[RINO Tom]

The wealthy have "traditionally" voted Republican and mostly still do, but I'm curious if anyone has seen any numbers or estimates on how "the wealthy" (this group has been categorized differently over time, ranging from income brackets that we use today to "professional and business" and things like that in a lot of old "exit polls") voted in elections before 1952?  I'm assuming Republican, but I'd like to see the splits.  Here are the numbers I could find:

2012: 54% Romney, 44% Obama ($100k+)
2008: 49% McCain, 49% Obama ($100k+)
2004: 58% Bush, 41% Kerry ($100k+)
2000: 55% Bush, 43% Gore ($100k+)
1996: 55% Dole, 39% Clinton ($100k+)
1992: 48% Bush, 36% Clinton ($75k+)
1988: 67% Bush, 33% Dukakis ($100k+)
1984: 69% Reagan, 31% Mondale ($50k+)
1980: 66% Reagan, 26% Carter ($50k+)
1976: 62% Ford, 38% Carter ($50k+)
1972: 69% Nixon, 44% McGovern (Prof. & Business)
1968: 56% Nixon, 34% Humphrey (Prof. & Business)
1964: 54% Johnson, 46% Goldwater (Prof. & Business)
1960: 58% Nixon, 42% Kennedy (Prof. & Business)
1956: 68% Eisenhower, 32% Stevenson (Prof. & Business)
1952: 64% Eisenhower, 36% Stevenson (Prof. & Business)

1976-2012 is from the Roper Center.  1952-1972 is from Gallup.  It's well known that the 1948 "Dewey Defeats Truman" fiasco led to increased exit polling, but it also seems to be widely accepted that more affluent voters tended to support Republicans during FDR's terms.  I was just curious if anyone had seen any numbers on this.  Thanks in advance!

[tpfkaw]

I'd assume the "wealthy" voted Republican in every election until Goldwater, the one possible exception being 1912 (probably a 3-way tossup).

[Kingpoleon]

I like how a Major in our Army is considered "wealthy".

[RINO Tom]

I've only seen higher incomes ($200k+) a few times.  The only one I can seem to find now is that families making over $200,000 voted 57-41% in favor of Republicans in 2014.

As far as pre-1896, you're probably right with the slaveholders, but also remember that Northern industrialists (also quite wealthy) tended to be very supportive of Republicans.  I mean, you said it was sectional, so I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out I think it's pretty well documented that guys like Rockefeller and Carnegie were Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Nice stats, but there are some important things to consider: first, the "wealthy" vote is not a united or uniform voting bloc.  In the South, wealthy voters overwhelmingly support the GOP; in the Northeast and many parts of the Midwest (like Chicago and Detroit), they seem to prefer Democrats.  Second, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from the wealthiest Americans go to Democrats.  People with annual incomes of $100K, $200K, etc. are probably the most Republican voters, but once you get into the millions and billions of dollars a year, then I suspect the preference becomes as strong (or stronger) for Democrats.  But because there are so few people who are that wealthy, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Nice stats, but there are some important things to consider: first, the "wealthy" vote is not a united or uniform voting bloc.  In the South, wealthy voters overwhelmingly support the GOP; in the Northeast and many parts of the Midwest (like Chicago and Detroit), they seem to prefer Democrats.  Second, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from the wealthiest Americans go to Democrats.  People with annual incomes of $100K, $200K, etc. are probably the most Republican voters, but once you get into the millions and billions of dollars a year, then I suspect the preference becomes as strong (or stronger) for Democrats.  But because there are so few people who are that wealthy, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.

Even in the north though there are still plenty of wealthy Republicans. Just based on my own personal experience of growing up in Fairfield County, CT towns like New Caanan and Wilton which were heavily old money WASPish tended to be as staunchly Republican as they'd always been wheras Westport which was almost (but not quite) as wealthy but more Jewish and Asian tended to be more liberal.

[tpfkaw]

I'd assume the "wealthy" voted Republican in every election until Goldwater, the one possible exception being 1912 (probably a 3-way tossup).

That's probably right, if only because there were proportionately more wealthy families in the North than in the South during the 19th century, and because we are defining wealthy here as ≥2X median income.  However, with something like a 10X median income cutoff, I would expect plantation owners to dominate through to 1880 or so and obviously vote Democratic.  I'd assume it was almost purely sectional up to 1896, when some Southern wealthy probably deserted Bryan.  For 1912, it's probably still Wilson, but Taft should have done much better with them than nationally.    

Plantation owners were 1. a tiny minority, and 2. not really all that wealthy (many were pretty deeply in debt and/or financially ruined after the Civil War). How many old buildings do you see that were named after plantation owners? (that weren't famous for other reasons)

Not to mention that the South was much smaller than the North in terms of population and even more so in terms of voting population, especially in the "plantation" states.

And there's also the fact that what was considered wealthy differed quite a bit from place to place. In 1925, say, a "wealthy" person in NYC might've been chauffeured in a brand-new Cadillac, while a wealthy Charlestonian drove themselves in a 2-year-old Chrysler and a wealthy resident of Nowheresville, Arkansas was one of the 2-3 people in town who owned a car.

The vast majority of "wealthy people" in this country, particularly in the past, are Northern corporate executives. In fact, I'd even guess that corporate executives outnumbered plantation owners amongst wealthy people in the old Confederate states (if not the Deep South), post 1865.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

What happened with 2000?

[RINO Tom]

Nice stats, but there are some important things to consider: first, the "wealthy" vote is not a united or uniform voting bloc.  In the South, wealthy voters overwhelmingly support the GOP; in the Northeast and many parts of the Midwest (like Chicago and Detroit), they seem to prefer Democrats.  Second, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from the wealthiest Americans go to Democrats.  People with annual incomes of $100K, $200K, etc. are probably the most Republican voters, but once you get into the millions and billions of dollars a year, then I suspect the preference becomes as strong (or stronger) for Democrats.  But because there are so few people who are that wealthy, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.

Is this true?  I mean sure, you get a lot of famous movie stars and entertainment personalities who are Democrats, but I feel it is largely ignored that (much less outspoken but often just as rich) athletes tend to lean Republican.  Also, while not representative of all millionaires and billionaires, a Forbes study found that America's 50 richest families still lean decidedly Republican.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest-families-republicans-or-democrats/

[Stranger in a strange land]

It depends greatly on the source of their wealth: people who made their money from natural resource extraction are overwhelmingly Republican. Those whose wealth comes from banking or finance tilt Republican but not as much, and tend to be awful "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" enablers. Those who made their money from tech tend to be either libertarian or liberal.   

[tpfkaw]

Nice stats, but there are some important things to consider: first, the "wealthy" vote is not a united or uniform voting bloc.  In the South, wealthy voters overwhelmingly support the GOP; in the Northeast and many parts of the Midwest (like Chicago and Detroit), they seem to prefer Democrats.  Second, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from the wealthiest Americans go to Democrats.  People with annual incomes of $100K, $200K, etc. are probably the most Republican voters, but once you get into the millions and billions of dollars a year, then I suspect the preference becomes as strong (or stronger) for Democrats.  But because there are so few people who are that wealthy, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.

Is this true?  I mean sure, you get a lot of famous movie stars and entertainment personalities who are Democrats, but I feel it is largely ignored that (much less outspoken but often just as rich) athletes tend to lean Republican.  Also, while not representative of all millionaires and billionaires, a Forbes study found that America's 50 richest families still lean decidedly Republican.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest-families-republicans-or-democrats/

White professional athletes tend to lean Republican; professional athletes overall are a very Democratic group because it's so minority-heavy.

[RINO Tom]

Nice stats, but there are some important things to consider: first, the "wealthy" vote is not a united or uniform voting bloc.  In the South, wealthy voters overwhelmingly support the GOP; in the Northeast and many parts of the Midwest (like Chicago and Detroit), they seem to prefer Democrats.  Second, the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions from the wealthiest Americans go to Democrats.  People with annual incomes of $100K, $200K, etc. are probably the most Republican voters, but once you get into the millions and billions of dollars a year, then I suspect the preference becomes as strong (or stronger) for Democrats.  But because there are so few people who are that wealthy, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.

Is this true?  I mean sure, you get a lot of famous movie stars and entertainment personalities who are Democrats, but I feel it is largely ignored that (much less outspoken but often just as rich) athletes tend to lean Republican.  Also, while not representative of all millionaires and billionaires, a Forbes study found that America's 50 richest families still lean decidedly Republican.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest-families-republicans-or-democrats/

White professional athletes tend to lean Republican; professional athletes overall are a very Democratic group because it's so minority-heavy.

True, and by extension, it would heavily depend on the league.  I remember seeing a poll in Sports Illustrated a long time ago that asked PGA golfers if they'd rather vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, and a plurality chose "The Bullet," LOL.

[buritobr]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1936 was the last Democrat to win the Orange County, California
FDR 29,836 votes
Landon 23,494 votes

Was the Orange County already a county of very rich people in 1936?

[tpfkaw]

Was the Orange County already a county of very rich people in 1936?

It was already a wealthy suburban area, although, since the population density was so much lower, the "very rich" were still mostly concentrated in the immediate LA suburbs.

[buritobr]

Los Angeles County
1936
FDR 757,351 (67.0%)
Landon 357,401 (31.6%)

Was the Orange County already a county of very rich people in 1936?

It was already a wealthy suburban area, although, since the population density was so much lower, the "very rich" were still mostly concentrated in the immediate LA suburbs.

[pbrower2a]

The remarkable election was 2008 in which there was no correlation between income and voting. The level of completed education, which used to be a good proxy for  Republican voting, turned negative in 2008. Barack Obama has been poaching away some voters who used to be reliably Republican based upon demographics.